Sure but not Se v Si or Ne v Ni, at least nowhere near the Fi v Fe comments that seem to occur.

Jag put it well in another thread:

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Jung gave a 1935 lecture to 200 doctors where he clearly stated the feeling function-regardless of attitude-has nothing to do with emotions. Nothing.
He defined emotions as physiological, something any type is capable of having, and emotions are not to be confused with the FEELING function as a mental process.

But people still insist on mixing Feeling functions with emotions and depth or breath of emotion. Which it just isn't. Therefore conversations that suggest one function has more ability to feel [insert any emotion here] will of course cause angst because the claim is ridiculous, insanely subjective and impossible to prove. Therefore: butthurt.

just like Ni conclusions are very important to an individual's view of things, Fi conclusions are very important to my view of things. that means Fi ends up seeming rather self-contained and impenetrable, but that seems to be the nature of all introverted functions.

and just like the "stupid Te" thread, Ne and Fe can end up seeming like they don't have a deep rooting in things - because sometimes they don't. extraverted functions specialize in dealing with a lot of potentially-unfamiliar, uncontrolled information at once - like lots of random people, or lots of random ideas... and i think the proclivity to seem shallow becomes especially true when the extraverted function is not well balanced with an introverted function. i know if i let Ne fly without much Fi moderation, it gets scattered and kind of ignores morality - it really can become kind of shallow. so Fe when not anchored with Ni or Si probably can also seem more flightly or shallow to a Fi user, especially a Fi user not using much Ne or Se to understand the full situation.

also -- i don't know if F is like N like this, but i feel like Ni is more original than Ne. Ne would rather do variations on a theme, rather than come up with something new. it likes new things, but not really self-generated things. Fi, on the other hand, likes self-generated things. this all makes sense, Fi and Ni being introverted and Fe and Ne being extraverted. and so if Fe prefers variation on a theme like Ne, then again, it may seem more shallow than Fi, while Fi may seem more self-worshipping than Fe.

regardless of all of this my final point is Fi is great and Fe is great and the ideal would be to have both in grand quantities so any butthurt is silly.

The one thing I get frustrated with sometimes is how some people characterize Fe doms as an "overbearing social police that only care about social norms and appropriateness". I hate when people come off like that so I really do try not to be like that. Fe is much more than that. I strongly believe that I have a good understanding of Fi by considering what many XXFP users have said. Why is Fe hard to understand?

The way I understand Fi is that the user is centered around the individual so hence it usually values the uniqueness and individuality of him or herself and the others around him or herself. It's made up of the nuances of what the individual believes/values/thinks. Since Fi is so individually based and context based, it can be difficult to decipher what the person values even to that individual. Because of this, outsiders sometimes may be in for a surprise when someone encroaches on his or her values. With this individual-based view of the world, others may wrongfully deem the Fi user as selfish/ self absorbed when that might be the furthest thing from the truth.

No offense intended ZBuck for starting this thread, I know you are simply looking to understand. However, there are many, many threads on this site that critique each function from the opposite perspective, each accusing the other of a variety of "sins".

Let's all respect each other's reality instead, isn't that the nobler path? And the path that works best for us all, together?

"Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
― Eleanor Roosevelt

"When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad."
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

I’m just curious what other people think the root of this Fi bias is. A lot of people are equating Fi with authenticity and genuine caring, and feel compelled to view Fe as ‘shallow’ instead of ‘having breadth’.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen any comments about how Ne, Se or Te are more ‘shallow’ or inauthentic than Ni, Si or Ti- nor are there comments from Ni, Si, or Ti types going on and on about how they intuit/sense/think so much more deeply than Ne, Se or Te types (respectively, sticking to same N, S or T comparisons)- so why is this so common with Fe/Fi?

It’s a rather self-serving and one dimensional view. Proteanmix just commented in another thread that it’s like emotional Viagra- the way Fi types feel this need to exalt Fi as being more “genuine”- and I have to admit, that’s exactly how it looks to me as well.

There have been somewhat similar arguments (equally as self-serving and one-dimensional) between N and S, but I’m wondering why F is the only function with so much contention between its own E/I attitude.

(I know this discussion is *kinda* going on in another thread, but I didn't want to further derail that thread.)

edit: also, I was hoping to steer clear of the empathy/sympathy debate, and focus on the E/I differences of deep/shallow vs. depth/breadth. I mean, no one ever refers to Ne as being shallow, I don't think there's any argument about it's 'breadth' being significant- so why is it so different for F?

Agree with others here.

IMO, all extroverted functions would generally seem to be associated with breadth and introverted ones with depth. It is probably human nature to be biased towards one's stronger functions (your way of seeing the world) and biased against the weaker ones (not your way). I think the biases might be more significant as it relates to opposing attitudes of the judging functions (T/F) vs. perceiving functions (S/N).

It's worse when people don't understand cognitive functions at all. As one example, I know several people who are dominant Te and though they have absolutely no idea they are doing it, are openly biased against and critical of others who aren't dominant Te. They think others think wrong. Those people aren't generally on forums like this though. So, another thing to potentially consider, if it seems like F is being singled out here, may be the makeup of the forum members and their respective preferences. I wouldn't imagine there is any less bias against Te than there is against Fe here.

I think Fi-doms tend to be obsessed with internal Feeling congruence, and therefore being "genuine" tends to be a major concern. Also, Fi values tend to be built up out of personal experience, so tend to be identified deeply with the self, which also tends to make one more defensive about them. Fe tends to be more concerned with mutuality and community... so from that perspective Fi can tend across as selfish and egocentric (and may well be, in many cases). I'm not sure bias is entirely one-sided.

Well- about the one sidedness- it's just that there's a *strong* trend to focus on 'shallow' rather than 'wide', and to tag Fe as being 'fake' because of it. That's what I meant.

What you said makes sense, and does help make it understandable. I can *sort of* see this going on with me and Ti, I guess (for the reason you mentioned). And this is what I was looking for, to hear what it looked like from the Fi side of the fence. Thanks.

Even though there has been the one thread here (Stupid Te) I’ve seen, the need to Te-bash doesn’t seem as common. Or maybe it’s just more rational, so it isn’t as blatant.

Finally, I think Feeling functions have more emotional valence because they involve people, aesthetics and relationships (pretty much by definition) and therefore tend to defy being entirely reduced to neutral abstractions. That's one advantage that Thinking has in general over Feeling: Thinking valuations are more detachable and externally verifiable than Feeling valuations.

And this^ explains why. I was thinking along those lines, I just wanted to see how others would phrase it.

Originally Posted by Quinlan

Oh really I thought it was the S/N thing that was shallow/deep stuff.

I did bring up the S/N contention in the op. And it is one of the first things that occurred to me when I read a bunch of Fe-bashing comments.

The way I understand Fi is that the user is centered around the individual so hence it usually values the uniqueness and individuality of him or herself and the others around him or herself..

Nope Not necessarily. A person could very well be Christian or Buddhist or whatever and add that to their identity.. They could go about it in an individualistic way, but you would be able to understand it on some level. Not all Fi is a highly personal enigma.

Nope Not necessarily. A person could very well be Christian or Buddhist or whatever and add that to their identity.. They could go about it in an individualistic way, but you would be able to understand it on some level. Not all Fi is a highly personal enigma.

Thanks for your addition but I don't really see how your post refutes what I said. In my mind, we are pretty much saying the same thing. My mom is an INFP Christian but she still has a very individualist streak about letting others be who they want to be as long as her deepest values aren't violated.

I said "Since Fi is so individually based and context based, it can be difficult to decipher what the person values even to that individual."
Key phrase: can be.

For the most part I think you're probably right.. we are not that different. I guess I just wanted to clear that part up though. That there can be common social bonds, shared values, ways to interact, appreciate/criticize, etc..